Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonKnight
I always felt that Martial, Arcane, Divine and Thief were the perfect adventuring group. I get the point that not everyone wants to be the healer, but it is an essential part of the group. At least to me.
|
I love nonstandard parties! There were a couple of good threads I recall back when the Wizards boards still existed - I remember being involved in a discussion about trumping class stereotypes (the Rogue can be the healer with UMD, the Cleric is clearly the Fighter, the Wizard uses spells to be a trap-buster, locksmith and skill-monkey - Summon Monster, Knock, etc - and the Fighter lays down battlefield control and status effects with reach, trip, etc) and also being directed to a cool thread about parties which simply didn't cover all the bases - what the challenges were, and how much fun they had.
The four-man party just feels a bit cliche to me, like the Five Man Gang or whatever. Does the Wizard have to be an androgynous elf, the Cleric a dwarf, the leader a straight white male, etc? Obviously, if you were going to rob a tomb you'd want to hire a trap specialist, but in real life teams don't always subscribe to 100% rigid specifications.
Also, in 3.5, why not just be Wizard, Wizard, Wizard, Wizard? One of them can do melee and one of them can do traps and locks, if you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonKnight
Might be colored by a group I was in a long time ago, but why would someone be a fighter if they could be a paladin, get better abilities, and really not lose out on much. It's not overpowered in comparison with, say a wizard, but against another martial class? There's no competition.
|
Why indeed? Well, Paladins
don't get better abilities than Fighters without losing out on much. They probably
are stronger overall in 3.5/PF (especially PF, since Paizo's awesome Fighter buffs were along the lines of "+1 to saves vs fear", or 3.5 with some splats and stuff) but they're still kind of weak, it's just that the Fighter is even worse (though, even then, Fighters have loads of feats and several options which do compete with Paladins). If you instead compare with a Ranger, Barbarian, Magus(PF), ToB class(3.5), or basically any caster, the Paladin hardly looks overpowered.
Besides, saying, "the second-worst class is better than the worst, let's nerf it!" does not seem very sensible to me - you'd be better buffing the worst class and nerfing the actually good ones.